Thursday, April 18, 2024

David L. Paulsen on a Timeless Being Not Being an Adequate Object of Ordinary Christian Worship

  

A Timeless Being Could Not Be the Adequate
Object of Ordinary Christian Worship

 

Many, (and, indeed, I suspect most) theists (and here I include myself) do not worship God as prime mover, first cause, necessary being, etc., but rather just a compassionate Father who rejoices with us in our joy and suffers with us in our sorrows. The God of theistic religion (as contra, perhaps, the God of theistic theology) enters powerfully into our individual and collective lives—hearing and responding to our prayers, healing our ills, forgiving our transgressions, redeeming us from sin, impelling us to repentance and uprightness, inspiring individual decisions and influencing the course of human history. But if God is timeless, He cannot heal or save or inspire or impel us to repentance and uprightness. For a timeless being cannot effect or bring about anything. Neither can a timeless being be affected or prompted by us—it cannot rejoice with us in our joys or suffer with us in our sorrows. It could not respond to prayer or acts of worship. It must remain forever passively unmoved by our overtures, our delights, or antagonisms, our tragedies, or despair and anxieties, our love, our seeking for it. There are two reasons for this: a timeless being is immutable in the strong sense of immutable. Such an individual could not be affected or prompted by another. To be affected or prompted by another is in some sense to be changed by the other. Further, a timeless being could not respond to us for responses are located in time after that to which they are responses.

 

Mavrodes has objected to the claim that a timeless being could not be responsive on two grounds: first, he denies the claim that responses must be located in time after that to which they are responses; and, second, it is intelligible to conceive of God being timelessly affected by our actions without being thereby changed in any way. Mavrodes’ first point, I believe to be well taken. At least, it makes sense to conceive of anticipatory responses where one, sensing the needs another is going to have, takes steps in advance of the needs actually arising to fulfil or satisfy the same. But this kind of response does bear a temporal relation to that to which it is a response—it is temporally prior. What I cannot conceive of it as a response which bears no temporal relation whatever to that wo which it was response.

 

The assertion that God could be timelessly affected by persons in the temporal world also seems odd. Considering how queer this would be in the context of a timeless being’s being timelessly affected by the sin and subsequent repentance of David. IF Yahweh is timeless, but compassionate, it is not the case that Yahweh’s sorrow for David’s sin arises: 1) after David’s sin; 2) before David’s sin; 3) at the time David sins. Similarly, Yahweh’s joy for David’s repentance does not arise: 1) as David repents; 2) after David’s repentance, nor 3) before David’s repentance. Not does God’s sorrow for David’s sin precede his joy for David’s repentance. It is not correct to say that Yahweh’s joy or sorrow arose at any time. At t1 (the first moment of the world’s existence) it is correct to say: God is saddened by David’s sin and is joyous about David’s repentance. At tn (The last moment of the world’s existence) it is correct to say: God is saddened by David’s sin and is joyous about David’s repentance: God is grieving because of David’s sin. And at the time of David’s sin it would be correct to say: God is glad because of David’s repentance.

 

God’s being timelessly affected in the way Mavrodes suggests lacks the element of pathos. And I think this is so, even if, from the standpoint of the believer, there were no phenomenological difference between God’s being timelessly affected and God’s being temporally affected. God must share my joys and sorrows at the time that I experience them or His sharing, if sharing it be, loses much of its value. (David Lamont Paulsen, “Comparative Coherency of Mormon (Finitistic) and Classical Theism” [PhD Thesis; The University of Michigan, 1975], 209-12)

 

Blog Archive